petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARIPetitioners Keith A. Lepak, et al. (“Petitioners”)respectfully submit this petition for a writ of certiorari toreview the judgment of the United States Court of Appealsfor the Fifth Circuit.OPINIONS BELOWThe opinion of the United States Court of Appeals forthe Fifth Circuit is unreported but is available at 453 Fed.App’x 522 and is reprinted in the Appendix (“App.”) at 1a-3a. The opinion of the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Texas is unreported but is availableat 2011 WL 554155 and is reprinted at App. 4a-10a.JURISDICTIONThe United States Court of Appeals for the FifthCircuit issued its decision on December 14, 2011. App.1a. The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing enbanc on September 24, 2012. App. 11a-12a. This Court hasjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORYPROVISIONS INVOLVEDThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution is reprinted in the Appendix.INTRODUCTIONFor the express purpose of forming a majority-Hispanic district, the City of Irving, Texas (“City”)
2created city council districts that, while roughly equalin total population, are remarkably malapportioned withregard to eligible voters. The district in question (District1) has approximately half the number of voters of at leasttwo other districts in the City (District 3 and District 6).The vote of those in District 1 who are eligible to casta ballot is thus worth twice as much as those of votersresiding elsewhere in the City. The court of appealsnevertheless held that “equalizing total population, butnot [voter] population of each district, does not violate theEqual Protection Clause.” App. 2a.This petition thus presents an important questionthat remains undecided. Nearly fifty years ago, the Courtheld that the Equal Protection Clause of the FourteenthAmendment guarantees all electors—regardless of wherethey may reside—an equally weighted vote. Reynolds v.Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). As the Court explained, “it isinconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in countingvotes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part ofthe State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, whilethe votes of persons in another area would be countedonly at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable.”Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 562. Indeed, the massive populationdisparities created by the City’s redistricting plan are perse unconstitutional if voter population is the appropriatebenchmark for measuring vote dilution. Mahan v. Howell,410 U.S. 315, 329 (1973). Thus, “[t]he one-person, onevoteprinciple may … be of little consequence if … eachjurisdiction can choose its own measure of population.”Chen v. City of Houston, 121 S. Ct. 2020 (2001) (Thomas,J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
Page 3 and 4: iiPARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGAND RULE
Page 5: ivTable of ContentsPageREASONS FOR
Page 11: xCited AuthoritiesStatutes and Othe
Page 16 and 17: 3The Court should grant the petitio
Page 18 and 19: 5has “an obligation to explain to
Page 20 and 21: 7because the City has substantially
Page 22 and 23: 9City of IrvingPopulation, Voting A
Page 24 and 25: 11The district court granted summar
Page 26 and 27: 13I. This Petition Presents An Impo
Page 28 and 29: 15First, the issue has increasingly
Page 30 and 31: 17wards had far more eligible voter
Page 32 and 33: 19or practice, they cannot claim to
Page 34 and 35: 21This case—in which the choice b
Page 36 and 37: 23two, five, or ten, or one-half.
Page 38 and 39: 25In Chen, the Fifth Circuit reache
Page 40: 27Importantly, then, the Fourteenth
Page 43 and 44: 30Tennessee voters’ dilution chal
Page 45 and 46: 32Under the Plan, as noted above, D
Page 47 and 48: 34slightly larger than 9.9%—prese
Page 49 and 50: 1aAppendix AAPPENDIX
Page 51 and 52: 2aAppendix APER CURIAM: *This case
Page 53 and 54: 4aAPPENDIX B — Appendix MEMORANDU
Page 55 and 56: 6aAppendix Bpopulation numbers are
Page 57 and 58: 8aAppendix Bwhich total population
Page 59 and 60: 10aAppendix Bthe court does acknowl
Page 61 and 62: 12aAppendix CON PETITION FOR REHEAR
Page 63 and 64: 14aAppendix DIrving’s at-large el
Page 65 and 66:
16aAppendix Dother things, the at-l
Page 67 and 68:
18aAppendix DThornburg v. Gingles,
Page 69 and 70:
20aAppendix Dfailed to establish a
Page 71 and 72:
22aAppendix Dcomplying with the Gin
Page 73 and 74:
24aAppendix Done-hundred percent co
Page 75 and 76:
26aAppendix Dhis opinion that would
Page 77 and 78:
28aAppendix Dto estimate the 2008 H
Page 79 and 80:
30aAppendix Dvotes of Hispanics hav
Page 81 and 82:
32aAppendix Daverage household size
Page 83 and 84:
34aAppendix DDr. Rives attempts to
Page 85 and 86:
36aAppendix Dwith sampling error ac
Page 87 and 88:
38aAppendix DIn his expert report,
Page 89 and 90:
40aAppendix DAs Dr. Rives pointed o
Page 91 and 92:
42aAppendix DC. Gingles II & III-Ra
Page 93 and 94:
44aAppendix Dthis methodology canno
Page 95 and 96:
46aAppendix Dthat the confidence th
Page 97 and 98:
48aAppendix Dto Dr. Alford’s hypo
Page 99 and 100:
50aAppendix DD. Totality of the Cir
Page 101 and 102:
52aAppendix DThe Court concludes th
Page 103 and 104:
54aAppendix DNotably, James Dickens
Page 105 and 106:
56aAppendix D1231, 1245-46, 173 L.E
Page 107 and 108:
58aAppendix D2. Proof of Changed De
Page 109 and 110:
60aAppendix DPlaintiff has not empl
Page 111 and 112:
62aAppendix Dthe way in which the v
Page 113 and 114:
64aAppendix Dthe requirement that t
Page 115 and 116:
66aAPPENDIX E — RELEVANT Appendix
Page 117:
68aAppendix Eof insurrection or reb
show all

petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?